Protective Custody Archives

J 2016-0745

Post author:Staff
Post published:December 14, 2016
Post category:J

In OCCA case No. J 2016-0745, J.M.D. appealed his conviction for Endeavoring to Perform an Act of Violence. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to reverse the order adjudicating J.M.D. as a delinquent child and remand the matter to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. One judge dissented. The case began when a delinquent petition was filed against J.M.D., a 15-year-old boy, accusing him of planning to hurt others. The case went to trial where the judge heard the evidence. J.M.D. had made a list of people he did not like and called it a Hit List. However, he said he was just joking and having fun with a friend when he made the list. He did not plan to hurt anyone. The court found that the evidence was not strong enough to prove that J.M.D. really intended to harm anyone. The judges agreed that just writing a list, even with a bad name, does not mean someone is a danger to others. Because there was no proof of a real intention to do harm, the court decided that J.M.D. should not be labeled as a delinquent child. The judges also noted that the law requires strong proof in these cases. Since the state failed to show that J.M.D. was really trying to hurt someone, he should not have been found guilty. Therefore, they decided to dismiss the case against him.

F-2005-129

Post author:Staff
Post published:April 3, 2006
Post category:F

In OCCA case No. F-2005-129, Denise Sue Watie appealed her conviction for sexually abusing a minor. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the judgment but modify the sentence. One judge dissented. Denise Sue Watie was found guilty by a jury in Tulsa County for sexually abusing her son. The jury suggested that she should serve eight years in prison. She was sentenced accordingly on January 24, 2005. After her conviction, she decided to appeal the decision, stating several reasons why she believed the trial was unfair. First, Watie claimed the court made an error by allowing certain evidence that she thought was unnecessary and repetitive. However, the court found that the admission of a videotaped interview of the complainant was acceptable under the law. Since the court followed the correct procedures, this part of her appeal was denied. Next, Watie argued that her confession to the police should not have been allowed because it was taken without informing her of her rights. The court examined how the police interviewed her. They noted that she was not arrested and could leave at any time. Because of this, the court concluded that the interview was not a custodial interrogation and did not require the police to read her the Miranda rights. Thus, Watie's statements were considered voluntary, and these claims were also denied. Watie also contended that the jury should have been instructed about the requirement that she would serve at least 85% of her sentence in prison. The court agreed that this information was important and should have been provided to the jury upon Watie’s request. Due to this oversight, her sentence was modified from eight years to six years. Lastly, Watie claimed that her sentence was too harsh. Since the court found that the jury should have been informed about the 85% rule, they reduced her sentence but did not fully agree with her position on its harshness. The decision to modify the sentence made her final argument about the severity of the punishment unnecessary. In conclusion, the judgment of the district court was affirmed, but her sentence was reduced to six years. The appeal brought attention to important legal procedures, but ultimately, the court decided that the original conviction stood, with a slight change to the length of time she would serve in prison.